Women should only wear skirts?

[dixieagle]

Hi…thanks for your post… I agree with what you said about modesty, but I dont think that a tshirt or other “sporty” clothing is immodest… I might be wrong?

I’ll try to explain why I tend to dress casually for school.
For example, right now I’m studying for exams. I can’t picture myself getting up after 2 hours of sleep (my exam schedule is that bad ) and putting on a blouse, skirt, and heels. The only person I’d probably do that for is Jesus, when I dress for church lol! So I just put on jeans and a sweatshirt, scarf, winter coat, and sit in that (dark) lecture hall for an hour, and then go back to study. Of course if I know Im going out to dinner or something later on that day, I wear something nicer… but when I’m in the middle of studying, I never really think “what do people think of me”, - though of course I wouldn’t wear something revealing or immodest…

I never thought that was morally wrong. (though in terms of fashion, it might be)

The other issue, is that although I do like skirts and dresses… (I really do, and I think they look nice) most of the time I can’t afford them. (and I can’t really sew). I have a bit of money now, so I can buy a nice skirt for church. But this type of clothing tends to be more expensive, and I usually dont have the money for it. In your last quote, it says that a woman can wear simple clothes and look neat and stylish, and that’s true - but where I live, even a simple skirt costs more than a pair of jeans on sale.

by the way, I don’t in any way see myself as a “liberated woman”, or a feminist, or modernist… I’m actualy very traditional/conservative in my values…

But I will think about all this carefully and I’ll pray about it.

God bless

Honey, stop worrying. You are fine in your casual “study clothes.”

 

[white_sheep]

Actually the way you just worded this seems to me to be trying to skirt the issues, so to speak, that have been dealt with in detail above, but you seem to want to ignore. So…

No the CC doesn’t teach what you want to put forth.

Throw your bombs if you wish, it’s been at least a pleasant conversation so far here though I must say, and I think a lot of the truth behind modesty has been discussed peacefully.

I’m sorry but you are completely wrong. In America it would indeed be immoral for a woman to run around topless, for Bushwomen in Africa it is not. Modest dress is largely a cultural issue. In America it is no longer scandalous or indecent or improper for a woman to wear pants and hasn’t been for quite some time. She shouldn’t wear MEN’S clothing. All pants are not MEN’S clothing, just like all skirts are not WOMEN’S clothing as evidenced by my example about the Scotsman who wears a kilt to mass. However, if I, though of Scottish lineage, but of American culture, wear a kilt or any sort of skirt to mass or anywhere else it would not be appropriate in any way.

You act as though some prohibition against women wearing pants is a universal and infallibly declared doctrine, which it is not. In some instances women should not wear pants. There are probably cultures around the world where it would indeed be deemed immodest and scandalous for a woman to wear pants even today, but not in America nor probably anywhere in the Western world.

That doesn’t mean that I believe women can wear any pants to mass they like even if they are WOMEN’S pants.

 

[dixieagle]

I still dont really see what’s immodest about pants… hmm…

and if the problem is that pants are ‘men’s clothing’, and if that’s a sin according to Deut., why is it not a teaching of the Church that women should wear only skirts/dresses?

just an honest question…

You’ve hit the nail on the head; if women were supposed to only wear skirts and dresses, we can be sure the Church would communicate this to us in an official way. Hasn’t happened, and it won’t.

 

[lpeck]

I’m not familiar enough with Padre Pio’s life/works to analyse his meaning, but from what’s represented in this thread, I’m judging that his guidance was that women should generally wear skirts and men should generally wear pants.

Wearing a skirt is an effort to be modest, which I think can be successfully achieved by wearing pants. In the US I’d consider it to be physically modest to wear dresses routinely, but in a way a person draws more attention that way, especially ‘nowadays’ and in my age group/generation. Actions and demeanor can also display modesty or immodesty; I think that’s true of demeanor more so than of clothes, to a certain extent.

Again, I’m unfamiliar with Padre Pio, but my thoughts are that you have to decide whether to follow the word of the ‘law’, or the spirit.That might be oversimplifying, but in my experience, the level of modesty required is hugely dependent on the environment (e.g. in church or at home).

 

[Jacafamala]

Actually the way you just worded this seems to me to be trying to skirt the issues, so to speak, that have been dealt with in detail above, but you seem to want to ignore. So…

No the CC doesn’t teach what you want to put forth.

Throw your bombs if you wish, it’s been at least a pleasant conversation so far here though I must say, and **I think a lot of the truth behind modesty has been discussed peacefully. **

This is the main thing, to have a peaceful conversation. The original question was, ‘should women only wear skirts’, so it’s pretty much to be expected that those of us who do only wear skirts might want to share why. And women who want to wear pants needn’t take offense at that.

 

[Shin]

I hate to say it, but this has been dealt with too earlier in the thread.

We are in times where many normal activities are almost always immoral, the Church is not issuing direct proclamations against them – but we can know they are by knowing Catholic morality and seeing what fits and doesn’t.

The vast majority of television, movies, a great deal of music and radio, swimwear, Raves, black metal concerts, how long do I have to go on?

They are absolutely condemnable, and any studied Catholic can figure this out. That the Popes don’t go around condemning black metal concerts, bikinis, vast swathes of Hollywood movies, doesn’t mean it’s OK to use all these for a good Catholic.

We are in a time of great moral corruption and the Church is in great trouble on all levels. But even if it weren’t, to expect a proclamation upon every bit of morality directly… is not how Catholicism works.

You are expected to learn the fundamentals and then see. And modesty… fundamentally… with study shows you that some garbs are not to be worn… And this regardless of culture too, some things cross all culture.

The Lord has no fashions.

 

[white_sheep]

I hate to say it, but this has been dealt with too earlier in the thread.

We are in times where many normal activities are almost always immoral, the Church is not issuing direct proclamations against them – but we can know they are by knowing Catholic morality and seeing what fits and doesn’t.

The vast majority of television, movies, a great deal of music and radio, swimwear, Raves, black metal concerts, how long do I have to go on?

They are absolutely condemnable, and any studied Catholic can figure this out. That the Popes don’t go around condemning black metal concerts, bikinis, vast swathes of Hollywood movies, doesn’t mean it’s OK to use all these for a good Catholic.

We are in a time of great moral corruption and the Church is in great trouble on all levels. But even if it weren’t, to expect a proclamation upon every bit of morality directly… is not how Catholicism works.

You are expected to learn the fundamentals and then see. And modesty… fundamentally… with study shows you that some garbs are not to be worn… And this regardless of culture too, some things cross all culture.

The Lord has no fashions.

That’s right, Scotsmen are all going to burn in hell for wearing skirts and bushwomen who wear no tops are all evil sluts and bushmen with their little speedos are going to hell too.

 

[Jacafamala]

That’s right, Scotsmen are all going to burn in hell for wearing skirts and bushwomen who wear no tops are all evil sluts and bushmen with their little speedos are going to hell too.

A rude and distasteful post.

 

[dixieagle]

I hate to say it, but this has been dealt with too earlier in the thread.

We are in times where many normal activities are almost always immoral, the Church is not issuing direct proclamations against them – but we can know they are by knowing Catholic morality and seeing what fits and doesn’t.

The vast majority of television, movies, a great deal of music and radio, swimwear, Raves, black metal concerts, how long do I have to go on?

They are absolutely condemnable, and any studied Catholic can figure this out. That the Popes don’t go around condemning black metal concerts, bikinis, vast swathes of Hollywood movies, doesn’t mean it’s OK to use all these for a good Catholic.

We are in a time of great moral corruption and the Church is in great trouble on all levels. But even if it weren’t, to expect a proclamation upon every bit of morality directly… is not how Catholicism works.

You are expected to learn the fundamentals and then see. And modesty… fundamentally… with study shows you that some garbs are not to be worn… And this regardless of culture too, some things cross all culture.

The Lord has no fashions.

Any “studied Catholic” can also figure out that women wearing modest pants or slacks are in no way comparable to the examples of “great moral corruption” that you cite. Slacks and pants are allowed to be worn in St. Peter’s, which has a very strict dress code (no short pants, nothing sleeveless.)

We get onto very thin ice when we are “more Catholic than the Pope” and try to elevate our own strictly personal preferences - which your opinions are - to the status of Church teaching. It is in no way charitable or helpful.

 

[Shin]

We get onto very thin ice when we are “more Catholic than the Pope” and try to elevate our own strictly personal preferences - which your opinions are - to the status of Church teaching. It is in no way charitable or helpful.

I don’t consider myself more Catholic than the Pope. Which is not exactly a charitable thing to say, nor helpful towards any discussion.

By way of example to show that your idea is flawed: In the Vatican, we have had in the past for many pontiffs, a large choir full of men called castratos, who were missing key parts of their anatomy.

I don’t view this as moral, and I think any studied Catholic could figure this out. But somehow back then, for a time they couldn’t.

That is the wonderful thing about the Catholic Church. The standards don’t change, and when cultural problems crop up, we can look to the the fundamentals.

Our Lady’s modesty does not change.

And we have had enough public pronouncements to know that modesty and lack thereof in the world is a significant problem. Our Lady herself warned us of the fashions that would come in the time after WW2. Do people heed it? Take it seriously? Or not. Heaven has warned us, itself. I think that’s serious enough.

And plenty of saints will warn you too, against the make up, and the rest. And thank God for St. Padre Pio, a true and holy priest.

 

[DOShea]

Um, DOShea, don’t nursing uniforms come in dresses as well as pant suits? They did 20 years ago I know, because I wore them then. I’m just saying that since a uniform dress is available, it could be worn on those days for church, couldn’t it?

I know you’re probably trying to make a point that the proposal for wearing ‘skirts’ at Mass cannot possibly be met by some, and giving your wife’s situation as an example, but the thing is, if a nursing uniform ‘dress’ is available, then that means that your wife could indeed wear it, and the argument that it is impossible for her disappears.

God does not hold us to the impossible, but is something really impossible or is it just something that we haven’t really thought could be possible?

She isn’t allowed to wear one; she doesn’t have an admin job, she’s caring for patients and is required to wear scrub-style uniforms.

But even if she could, it would be a difficult sell. She’s never been thrown out of a church in many decades of attendance wearing slacks. In fact it is only in the last few years, with the rise in everyone being a universal Bishop willing to impose requirements that the legitimate Bishops and Pastors do not, that the question has ever come up.

We aren’t in the 1950s anymore. Acceptable modes of respectable dress changes. If we’re going to tie the anchor around fashion antiquity, well let’s all start wearing roman robes in the style of 1st century Palestine and making clergy cut their hair like the tonsure style of the middle ages.

Really, aren’t there enough hungry to feed and homeless with no where to go that we have to waste web ink on whether God gives a hoot if you come worship Him in pants or a skirt?

 

[Bluegoat]

I don’t consider myself more Catholic than the Pope. Which is not exactly a charitable thing to say, nor helpful towards any discussion.

By way of example to show that your idea is flawed: In the Vatican, we have had in the past for many pontiffs, a large choir full of men called castratos, who were missing key parts of their anatomy.

I don’t view this as moral, and I think any studied Catholic could figure this out. But somehow back then, for a time they couldn’t.

That is the wonderful thing about the Catholic Church. The standards don’t change, and when cultural problems crop up, we can look to the the fundamentals.

Our Lady’s modesty does not change.

And we have had enough public pronouncements to know that modesty and lack thereof in the world is a significant problem. Our Lady herself warned us of the fashions that would come in the time after WW2. Do people heed it? Take it seriously? Or not. Heaven has warned us, itself. I think that’s serious enough.

And plenty of saints will warn you too, against the make up, and the rest. And thank God for St. Padre Pio, a true and holy priest.

So, it rather sounds like you know quite well that the CC has no official problem with women in pants, but are sure that they are wrong and will one day see the error of their ways.

 

[Shin]

So, it rather sounds like you know quite well that the CC has no official problem with women in pants, but are sure that they are wrong and will one day see the error of their ways.

You can attempt to put what words you want in my mouth, but that doesn’t make them mine, it makes them yours.

It sounds to me like you have ignored all the first part of this thread, and just come to try to throw bombs. Which I’ve said once before so I might just start ignoring some of the stuff on that vein posted by anyone here, since it is already addressed and repeating things really isn’t needed.

 

[Poetess_Kera]

I think it’s very important to remember that the Church has not said that women should only wear pants to Mass. If a woman would like to wear a skirt or dress, that’s great. If they’d like to wear a nice top and some dress pants, that’s great too. I think the important thing here is not to impose our personal opinions in regards to modest dress on other people to the point of making them feel self-conscious. If the Church makes an announcement ruling that women should only wear skirts or dresses to Mass, that’s a completely different story, but for now, we should let people dress modestly according to their conscience, skirt or no skirt, dress or no dress. God is happy that we’re visiting Him in His house; that’s the most important thing.

 

[dixieagle]

She isn’t allowed to wear one; she doesn’t have an admin job, she’s caring for patients and is required to wear scrub-style uniforms.

But even if she could, it would be a difficult sell. She’s never been thrown out of a church in many decades of attendance wearing slacks. In fact it is only in the last few years, with the rise in everyone being a universal Bishop willing to impose requirements that the legitimate Bishops and Pastors do not, that the question has ever come up.

We aren’t in the 1950s anymore. Acceptable modes of respectable dress changes. If we’re going to tie the anchor around fashion antiquity, well let’s all start wearing roman robes in the style of 1st century Palestine and making clergy cut their hair like the tonsure style of the middle ages.

Really, aren’t there enough hungry to feed and homeless with no where to go that we have to waste web ink on whether God gives a hoot if you come worship Him in pants or a skirt?

Very well stated.

 

[sarahraegraham]

I think it’s also important to realize that just because the Church has not declared that something is required does not mean that we should NOT do it. Also, just because the Church has not said that something is definitively preferable does not mean that we should NOT do it. This is one of those issues.

The entire discussion about whether or not wearing a skirt/dress to mass or 100% of the time is required by the Church or preferred by the Church is silly, because we’ll just go around in circles and people will start to find reasons to get upset about the whole thing.

There are many things Christians (both Catholic and non-Catholic) do that are not written in stone as required or preferred in and of themselves for our salvation, aid in our spiritual development or the good of society. But that does not mean that we cannot come to a reasonable conclusion that for ourselves and/or for the majority of people, something is still desirable for those ends and for improving society. This is one of those issues.

Our faith is not legalistic on this or many other matters. But we can still discuss them as they are relevant to our personal faiths and the way we express our faith to other people. For me personally, this is a HUGE issue for women today. Our faith compels us to modesty in general and to project to the world the reality of the Godhead and especially marriage. Distinctly feminine vs. distinctly masculine clothing does that better than any other singular thing in our culture. Projection and appearance mean a lot. Appearance is not always truth, but that does not mean that we should fail to try and project truth to others. Our culture has so skewed what it means to be male or female that it needs those of us who do know to show it demonstrably, by both action and appearance. That is my informed personal opinion.

Some food for thought: If every single Christian women would began to wear tasteful dresses or skirts as often as she could, what would happen to our culture? If men began responding to that manner of dressing by being more respectful, what would happen to our culture? The impact of our personal dress may seem a little thing to us, but it could be huge. If we began to dress like our bodies should be deemed special, different… that we should be protected as specially-made female human beings, what would happen to our culture?

Just some things to think about.

 

[Jacafamala]

There’s a club here at CAF, Modest is Hottest. Maybe it would be a good idea for those interested in talking about this issue in a non-debate manner to go there?

 

[Miss_Linda]

Our faith compels us to modesty in general and to project to the world the reality of the Godhead and especially marriage. Distinctly feminine vs. distinctly masculine clothing does that better than any other singular thing in our culture. Projection and appearance mean a lot. Appearance is not always truth, but that does not mean that we should fail to try and project truth to others. Our culture has so skewed what it means to be male or female that it needs those of us who do know to show it demonstrably, by both action and appearance. That is my informed personal opinion.

Sarahraegraham, what an eloquent way to state a beautiful truth!

 

[stinkcat_14]

Mary is never shown to have worn pants and this is often held up as a reason for women not to wear pants. Jesus is never shown to wear pants either but that seems to be ok for men. Why?

 

[peary1]

Hi

But is he (Padre Pio) saying that women should ALWAYS wear skirts, or only in church? Is it alright for women to wear (modest) pants outside of Mass?

**At Fatima, Our Lady told little Jacinta Marto that there would be introduced fashions that would offend Our Lord very much. If you follow the fashions of the 1920s and 1930s, it is understandable how Our Lord could be offended. I can only imagine how the fashions of today offend Him.

Remember that Saint Pio was born in the 1800s and died in 1968. His life ran the whole gamut of changes in the world, including fashions. Many if not most of those who came to hear his confession were women. He believed that women, if not clothed modesty, could become an occassion of sin to men. Although he was probably referring to modest dress at Mass, St. Pio was also stating a general opinion, but it was more than an opinion because of the introduction of sin and seduction.**

However, some people are saying that women should *only ever *wear skirts and dresses. They always cite this verse:
A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.

This is also a biblical verse. I believe that there existed “cross-dressers” at the time the Bible was written, and it was tied to sinful conduct, which is why it was forbidden to do that. For example, men who would dress as women (like trans’gendered’ today). If it offended God back then, I’m sure it offends Him now. The reason given is that in Genesis 1:27 - “God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.” Separate creations but equal. Each has his or her own gifts from God as male and female.

Saint Pio also said that men should not come bare-armed to church, and also dress modestly. And it is true - women can get “turned out” by a man’s arm, how large or outlined his muscles are, how tight his pants are, the size of a man’s chest, wearing clothes that accent or outline one’s physical form, etc. This again, in a church setting, is what Padre Pio was concerned about. You don’t come to church looking for a sexual adventure. You come to church to worship God.